i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 8- 00 22 1- CV Serg io AL AN IS , Sr . a

nd Ma ri a Gu a da lup e Al a nis , Ap pe lla nts
v . J esus Maria AL VA RE Z a nd Al va re z & As so c ia te s, Appellee s Fr om the 381st J udicial District Court, Starr County , Texas

Trial Court No. DC-00-328 Honora ble J ose L

uis Garza, Judge Pre siding Opinion by : Marialy

n Ba rnar d, J ustice Sitt ing: Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice

Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Marialy n Ba rnar d, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: April 8, 2009 REVERSED AND REMANDED Serg io Alanis, Sr. and Maria Guada lupe Alanis appe al the trial c ourt’s order dismiss ing the
un de rl y ingc a

us e fo r l a c k o f p ro se c uti on . B e c a us e Mari a Gu a da lup e Al a nis state d o n th e re c or d in
a n a ba te me nt h e a ri ng that she did no t wish to pr oc e e d with the a pp e a l, we wi ll r e fe r e xclu siv e ly to Serg io Alanis, Sr. as the appe llant in this opinion. I n two issues on appea l, Alanis contends the tria l04

- 08

- 00 22 1- CV

- 2- c ourt : ( 1) e rr e d in

dis mis sin g the un de rl y ingc a us e ; a nd (2 ) c on str

uc tiv e ly de pr ive d h im o f a c c e ss t o the cour t. We sustain Alanis’s issues, rever se the trial c ourt’s orde r, and rema nd the ca use to the trial
c ourt fo r f ur the r p ro c e e din g s. B ACKG ROUND Alanis filed the unde rly ing c ause a g ainst J esus Maria Alvare z and Alvare z & Associate s (collec tively

ref err ed to herein as “A lvare z”) asser ting c laims for bre ach of

fiduciar y duty and fr aud. On Aug ust 16, 2005, Alanis file d a motion for summary judgme nt based on Alva rez’s dee med
a dmi ssi on s. I n th e c ov e r l e tte r a c c omp a nyingthe mo ti on , Ala nis state d, “ Ia m g oin g to n e e d to schedule this for submission on t he Court’s submission docket, wi t h o u t t h e nece ssity for a n oral he a ri ng .” Th e re a so n fo r re qu e sti ng su bmi ssi on wi tho ut a n or a l he a ri ng wa s a pp a re nt ly be c a us e A l a n i s w a s a n i n m a t e i n f e d e r a l c u s t o d y. I n a le tte r d a te d O c tob e r 1 3, 20 05 , A lanis pr ov ide d th e tr ia l court wi th a fo rm or de r t o s e t hi s motion for summary

for he aring . The letter

further stated: A conf ere nce c all is refe renc ed re l at i v e to my appea ranc e. When I

have a signe d Orde r I ca n get with my counselor at the prison, Mr. Smith, and make the a rr a ng e me nts fo r t

he c on fe re nc e c a ll. Whe n I have tho se a rr a ng e me nts ma de Iwi ll no t i fy t he Court by

mail of the ar

rang ements, the c all that needs to be made by the C o u rt at t h e ti m e of t h e h ea ri n g, an d wh o t h o s e a rr an gem en t s wi l l b e m ad e t h ro u gh for that date. I n a le tte r a dd

re sse d to the Ho no ra

ble JohnA. P op e, I I I , d a te d Jan ua ry 12 , 2 00 6, Al a nis
asser ted that two of his pending motions would be disposi tive of his case . The letter stated that the form orde r provided in the le tter date d October 13, 2005, was in r esponse to corre spondence from the cour t. The letter asser

ted, “The only barr ier to this case proce eding to judgment is this Court’s ref usal to schedule the motion for summary judgme nt f or a hear ing, and this Court’s failure to enter summary judgme nt on submiss ion.”04

- 08

- 00 22 1- CV

- 3- J udg e P ope responded to Alanis by letter dated J anuar y 25, 2006, noting the la

ng uag e in the fo rm or de r re fe rr ing to A lanis a pp e a ri ngby

te le ph on ic c on fe re nc e . Jud g e Pop e a sse rt e d, “ At no tim e have I advised y ou that y our pre sence was not nec essar y . I do not have he aring s without the parties being prese nt, an attorne y appea ring for them, or

a valid re ason for

their abse nce.” J udg e Pope
c on c lud e d th a t a lth ou g h h e wo uld c on sid e r Al a nis ’s mot ion , he wo uld no t pr ov ide fo r a te le ph on ic h ea ri n g. Alanis responde d to J udg e Pope by letter dated Fe bruar

y 6, 2006, stating that he wa s unawa re that J udg e Pope did not a llow a par ty to appea r by telephone c onfer ence . Alanis furthe r stated that he was enclosing “an a

pplication for a

writ of habe as cor

pus ad prose quendum so the Clerk of the Court can issue a

writ for the purpose of

transfe rring me from fede ral custody into the c ustody of the Starr County

Sheriff, to be transfe rre d to y our Court, t h er e t o remain until the proc eeding s are completed.” I n his application for the wr i t , Alanis reque sted that he be permitted to appe ar at the
su mma ry jud g me nt h e a ri ng ba se d o n th e c ourt ’s “po li cy of re qu ir inga ll p a rt ie s to pr oc e e din g s to appea r at he aring s.” J udg e Pope re sponded t o Al anis by letter dated Fe bruar

y 21, 2006, stating that he did not know whethe r he had the authority to use county

funds to have A lanis transported f or the prose cution of his civil case . J udg e Pope re quested that Ala nis resea rch the matter a

nd advise. Alanis responde d to J udg e Pope by letter da ted April 7, 2006, asse rting that the problem had
a ri sen fro m J ud g e Pop e ’s ru le tha t r e qu ir e d h im t o a

pp e a r i n p e rs on . A lanis no te d th a t a po ssi ble alternative means of a cce ss would be to permit hi m to appear by telephone c onfer ence and re newe d his re qu e st f

or su c h a rrangements. An oth e r a lte rn a tiv e Al a nis su g g e ste d w a s f or the tr ia l c ourt

to
ru l e o n h i s m o t i o n fo r s u m m ar y j u d gm en twi t h o u ta h ea ri n g.04

- 08

- 00 22 1- CV

- 4- B y le tte r d a te d M a y

22 , 2 00 6, Al a nis adv is ed th e co ur t th a t no a c tio n h a d b e e n ta ke n in response to h i s April 7, 2006 corr espondenc e. The rec ord is unclea r whe ther a dditional
corr espondenc e or doc uments were fi led from Ma y 22, 2006 to J anuar

y 23, 2007; however , on J anuar y 16, 2007, Alanis sent a letter addre ssed to the Honora ble J ose L

uis G ar z a. T he letter
c on g ratul a ted J ud g e Ga

rza a nd no te d th a t Judg e Pop e ha d b e e n unw ill ingto a llo w h is c a se to pr oc e e d to jud g me nt a

bs e nt Al a nis ’s a

pp e a ra nc e a t a he a ri ng on

the mot ion

fo r s umm a ry

jud g me nt. The letter

further noted J udg e Pope’s unwilling ness to allow Alanis to appe ar by telephone confe renc e. The letter re quested that Judge G arza schedule the summary judgme nt hear ing a

nd allow him to appear

by telephone c onfer ence . On Fe bruar

y 6, 2007, the trial cour

t sent the p ar ties a notice se tting Alanis’s motion for summary judgme nt for hea

ring on Fe bruar

y 20, 2007. The n o t i ce s t ated that the f ailure to a ppear would result in dismiss al of the c ause. Asecond notice of hea ring was sent on Fe bruar

y 21, 2007, appar ently

resc heduling the hea

ring for Apr il 9, 2007. On Marc h 5, 20 07 , Al a nis se nt a le tte r to Judg e Ga rza , n oti ng that he ha d ma de a re qu e st t o appe a r a t th e F e b r

u a r y 2 0 , 2 0 0 7 h e a r in g te le p h o n ic a ll y ; “ h o w e v e r , w it h o u t th e a s s is ta

n ce of the Bur eau of Prisons staf

f, [he] was unable to a

ppear .” The letter

rene wed Ala

nis’s reque st to appear telephonica lly

at the hea

ring resc heduled for April 9, 2007. On Marc h 27, 2007, Alanis also filed
an ap p l i ca t i o n fo r a wr i tt o p er s o n al l y ap p ea r a tt h e h ea ri n g. On April 11, 2007, the trial c ourt called the motion for summary judgme nt f or hea ring . The
re c or d is un c le a r w hy

the he a ri ng was c a lle d o n Apr il 1 1, 20 07 , in ste a d o f A pr il 9 , 2 00 7. Mr s. Alanis was pr esent a t the hear ing, a nd the following exchang e occ urre d: THE COURT: I re ceive d from y our husband, ma’ am, an a pplication for wr it of h a b e a s c o r p u s p r o s e c u n d

u m [ s ic ].04

- 08

- 00 22 1- CV

- 5- (The Court inter

prete d for Ms. Alanis what the Court had stated). (Reporte r’s note: The following was int erpr eted by the C ourt Reporter for the rec ord). THE COURT: I n this document he asks for the Court to bring him over there
. MS. ALAN I S: Si. THE COURT: One, this is not a criminal ca se. I t’s a civil case. Oka y . Idon’t think Ihave the po we r t o b ri ng him , o ne . T wo , e ve n if Ic ou ld br ing him , I ’m

no t g oin g to waste the County ’s money to bring him in a civil case or private c ase. Y ou unde r s ta n d ? I t c o s ts f

o r me to b r in g h im d o w n . Wh a t I ’ m s a y in g is , I ’ m n o t g oing to bring him down. Okay
. The past two tim es y ou’ve be en her e I asked to re ceive a le tte r f or y ou to p e rs on a lly

have a uth or ity to p roce e d f

or wa rd on thi s c a se . T his c a se is p e nd ingfo r s e ve n y e a rs . Oka y . I sim ply a m trying to g ive y ou a n o pp or tun ity so that y ou could have y our day in Court so y ou could try and prove this case. THE I NTERPRETER: He didn’t want to se nd a letter, mail a letter. Go a head a nd g ive him some Court dates by ‘phone. THE C O U RT : I n e e d to s e e h im p e r s o n a ll y w h e n h e ’ s te s ti f y in g s o I c a n ma

ke a det erm in ati on or deci si on in my mi nd if I th in k he’s tel li ng me t he t rut h o r no t. By telephone I

can’ t make a de termination. Do y ou understand me ? The c ourt then conc luded the hea ring by stating it w as go i n g to dismi ss the cause for wa nt of prosec ution. Alanis subsequently appea led the trial c ourt’s dismissal order. D I S CUS S I ON We reviewa trial c ourt’s dismissal for want of prosec ution under an a b use of discr etion standard. In re R.C.R. , 2 30 S.W. 3d 42 3, 42 6 ( Te x. Ap p. —F or t Wor th 20 07, n o p e t.) ; Pedraza v. Cro ssr oa ds Se c ur ity

Sy s. , 960 S.W .2d 339, 342 (Tex. App.—Corpus Chr i s t i 1 9 9 7, no pet.). Al t h o u gh an i n m at e d o es n o th av e a n ab s o l u t e r i gh t t o ap p ea r i n p er s o n at ev ery co u rt p ro ce ed i n g, he ca nnot be denied a cce ss to the courts s imply beca use he is an inmate. In re Z.L. T. , 124 S.W .3d 16 3, 16 5 ( Te x. 20 03 ); In re R.C.R. , 23 0 S. W.3 d at 42 6. Al tho ug h tr ia l c ourt s c a n c on sid e r a va ri e ty of fa ctors in dec iding whe ther to g ra n t an i nmate’s r equest for a benc h war

rant, if the c ourt de te rm ine s th a t a

pr o s e inm a te in a

c ivi l a c tio n is no t e nti tle d to le a ve pr iso n to a pp e a r p e rs on a lly in c ourt , the inm a te sh ou ld be a llo we d to pr oc e e d by a ff ida vit , d e po sit ion , te le ph on e , o r o the r m e a ns .04

- 08

- 00 22 1- CV

- 6- In re R.C.R. , 2 30 S.W. 3d a t 42 6; In re Ram irez , 9 9 4 S
. W
. 2 d 6 8 2 , 6 8 4 ( T e x. A p p . — S a n An ton io 1998, orig . proce eding ). I n th is c a s e , t h e t r i a l c o u rt d e n i e d A l a n i s ’ s r e qu e s t f o r a b e n c h w a r

r a n t a n d h i s m o t ion to appea r by alternative means. “ Thus, the trial court d ismiss ed [Alanis’s] case for failure to appea

r wi thout providing [Alanis] any means to appe ar.” In re R.C.R. , 2 3 0 S
. W
. 3 d a t 42 7. “ Th is i s fundame ntally unfair and denied [Alanis] acce ss to the courts.” Id . Acc ording ly , we sustain Alanis’s issues and re verse the trial cour t’s order
. C ONCL US I ON The trial c ourt’s orde r is reve rsed, a nd the ca use is rema

nded to the t ri al cour

t for fur ther pr oc e e din g s. Marialy n Ba rnar d, J ustice